The Role of Higher E ducation in Promoting Stability in Afghanistan

1. The Role of Higher Education in Promoting Stability in Afghanistan • Joseph B. Berger Center for International Education (CIE) University of Massachusetts Amherst

2. Introduction • Most empirical and conceptual work has focused on the relationship between fragility and primary/basic education • In order to improve the positive impact of education on fragility “focus on primary/basic education is not sufficient” (INEE, 2010, p. 13) • Little emphasis on the entire sector including post-basic education sub-sectors in secondary, vocational and tertiary education.

3. Recommendations for Education Research, Policy, Planning and Programming (adapted from INEE WGFE, 2010) • Higher Education is more than service delivery, it is: • a stabilizing factor • a potential source for contributing to fragility; and • a potential means to mitigate fragility, contribute to state-building and build more resilient societies. • Higher Education must be considered from a quality as well as access framework • Analysis of higher education’s role(s) in fragility is indispensable to ensure that higher education does not exacerbate fragility • Taking a holistic perspective of the education system is essential in conflict-affected and fragile contexts

4. Purpose • Therefore, the purpose of this presentation is to examine the relationship between fragility and Higher Education by: • Applying concepts from emerging studies that examine fragility and basic education; • Examining Afghanistan as an example case; and • Exploring how to adapt the Progressive Framework to higher education.

5. Adapted Stages of Fragility • Five stages (adapted from OECD/DAC, 2008) • Arrested Development (AD) • Deterioration (D) • Crisis (C) • Post-crisis Transition (PT) • Early Capacity (EC) AD EC D PT C

6. Challenges for Higher Education • Access vs. Quality • Social Inequities – Gender, Rural, and Ethnic • International Standards vs.Local Capacity/Demand • Centralization vs. De-centralization • Infrastructure – Facilities, Curriculum, Staff • Financing • Relation to Entire Education Sector and Other Sectors • Social Charter & Fulfilling Expectations

7. Initial “Progress” • Development of a national Strategic Plan • Increased numbers of universities outside of Kabul • Improving capacity • Increased access (particularly for women) • Re-introduction of graduate education in key applied fields • Reverse “brain drain”

8. Promise of Higher Education in Response to Fragility • Public/Collective Good • Building Institutional Capacity • Nation Building • Citizen Development • Leader Development • Workforce/Economic Development • Private/Individual Good • Credentials • Material, Political and Symbolic Return on Investment

9. The Case of Afghanistan • Afghanistan remains somewhere between crisis and post-crisis transition • Dramatic deterioration of tertiary education over time • 1990 - 24,333 (total student population)1995 - 17,3702001 - 7,881 • Less than 2 percent of the population over25 years of age has any tertiary education (Afghanistan NHESP, 2010)

10. The Case of Afghanistan Rapid growth in post-secondary education • 2003 - 34,000 students • 2009 - 62,000 students • By 2010 - 100,000 high school graduates • By 2014 - 600,000 high school graduates • 2009 - Total budget for the 22 universities was $35 million, averaging about $1.6 million per institution. • Highly centralized system • Rapidly emerging unregulated private sector

11. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education (FTI, 2008) • Sector Planning & Coordination • Resource Mobilization • Service Delivery • Student Flows • Stabilization and Fragility Reduction

12. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: • (Sub)Sector Planning & Coordination • Improve capacity to implement National Strategic Plan • Harmonize efforts with the entire education sub-sector • Improve relationships & coordination with/among donors • Improve management information systems • Coordinate public and private higher education in terms of access and quality assurance

13. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: • Resource Mobilization • Continue to expand revenue base in alignment with other educational priorities • Enhance budgeting and accounting capacity • Examine alternative funding structures • De-centralize some financial decision-making to campuses • Implement mechanisms that enable campus to generate and manage resources

14. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: • Service Delivery • Implement quality assurance frameworks that address faculty roles and rewards • Continue to develop material infrastructure of university campuses • Improve MoHE and campus-based administrative and academic leadership capacity • Focus on professional fields that have multiplier effects in other domains (e.g. teacher training, public health, public administration)

15. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: • Student Flows • Expand access in public and private universities in ways that align with expanding secondary enrollment • Develop community colleges and enhanced vocational education opportunities • Increase opportunities for women • Expand efforts to minimize “Kabul-centric” delivery of services

16. Adapting the Progressive Framework to Higher Education: • Stabilization and Fragility Reduction • Focus on safety and security on campuses • Improve living conditions for students • Increase transparency in decision-making at all levels • Increase capacity and opportunities for participation in decision-making and shared governance • Incorporate traditional values into organizational development activities • Link HE opportunities to individual and collective economic development